Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Mahmood Ahmad vs Secretary to Govtment of PunjabK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 368 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ilahi Khawaja vs Mian Khadim Hussain and others1995 MLD 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ilahi Khawaja vs Mian Khadim Hussain And Other1995 MLD 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• M.D.Tahir vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 152 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Federal Government through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and another1995 CLC 443 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and another1995 CLC 1687 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01
  judicial reviewpolicy matterspolitical questionweekly holidaysinjunctions of Islamwrit jurisdictionpublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses constitutional petitions challenging the government's policy decision to observe two weekly holidays (Friday and Saturday), which was alleged to be violative of Islamic injunctions and detrimental to the national economy and banking sector. The core legal questions involved whether declaring Friday and Saturday as weekly holidays contravenes the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, and whether socio-economic and political policy decisions of the executive are justiciable under the writ jurisdiction. The Court held that neither the Holy Qur'an nor the Sunnah explicitly prohibits declaring Friday or Saturday as holidays, noting that Islamic injunctions permit work after Friday prayers rather than mandating continuous labor. Furthermore, the Court held that policy decisions of a socio-economic and political nature taken by the executive fall outside the purview of judicial review unless proven to be mala fide, ultra vires, or in clear violation of law. The key principle laid down is that the judiciary will not sit in appeal over executive policy and political choices, and there is a presumption that government decisions are taken in the public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government decision to observe two weekly holidays including Friday and Saturday is violative of the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Can the superior courts interfere with socio-economic and political policy decisions of the executive in exercise of writ jurisdiction?
  • Is there a legal presumption that a policy decision adopted by the Government is in the public interest?
  Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir, Advocate anothers vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad1995 CLC 752 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-13Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir, Advocate and another vs Provincial Government through its1995 CLC 1730 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 206 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 CLC 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• M. Shahid Saigol vs The Controller of Capital Issues Corporate Law1995 MLD 1950 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-18Read full judgment →
• M. Shahid Saigol And Other vs M/s Kohinoor Textile Mills Limited AndK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 517 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M. Shahid Saigol and 16 others vs M/s. Kohinoor Mills Ltd. and 7 others1995 PLD Lahore 264 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01
  companies ordinanceextraordinary general meetingassociated company investmentmaterial facts disclosureminor shareholdersnext friendfiduciary behaviourspecial resolution
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under sections 161(8), 208, 217, and 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 challenged the notice of an Extraordinary General Meeting, its proceedings, and a special resolution passed by respondent No.1-Company authorizing additional investment in its associated company, Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited. The core legal questions involved whether minority shareholders could maintain the petition despite minor technical defects regarding minor petitioners, whether common directors were barred from voting, and whether the notice and resolution violated mandatory disclosure requirements. The Lahore High Court held that substantial compliance with Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cured any formal defect in naming minor petitioners through their natural guardian, that common directors as shareholders were not barred from voting, but that the notice and resolution violated sections 160(1)(B) and 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 by failing to disclose material facts and terms and conditions of investment, which prevented members from effectively exercising their rights. The court declared the notice and resolution invalid, directing a fresh meeting.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition filed by minority shareholders is maintainable when minor petitioners are represented by their natural father as next friend without formal designation in the title?
  • Are directors who hold shares in a company barred from voting as shareholders on a resolution concerning an associated company due to holding directorships in both companies?
  • Does a notice for an Extraordinary General Meeting regarding investment in an associated company stand vitiated for failing to annex a statement setting out all material facts under section 160(1)(B) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Whether non-compliance with the mandatory disclosure requirements of sections 160(1)(B) and 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 prevents members from using their voting rights effectively?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Rafique Malik vs Mst. Surriyya Khanum and 4 others1995 CLC 1933 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02
  rented premisesevictionwilful defaulterRent ControllerCode of Civil Procedurelandlord-tenant relationshipestoppelconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority directing the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the rented premises. The core legal questions concerned whether the Rent Controller is strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in procedural matters like closing evidence, and whether a tenant may challenge the landlord's title without surrendering possession. The Court held that a Rent Controller acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and is not strictly bound by the procedural rigors of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provided they maintain fairness and equity. Consequently, the Rent Controller’s decision to close the petitioner's evidence after multiple failed opportunities was upheld as lawful. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the established principle that a tenant is estopped from disputing the landlord's title without first surrendering possession of the premises. Finding no jurisdictional defect or illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower forums, the High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims while the landlady had sufficiently proven her case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller strictly bound by the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a tenant challenge the title of the landlord without first surrendering possession of the rented premises?
  • Does a Rent Controller act as a court or in a quasi-judicial capacity when exercising functions under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Izharul Haq And Other vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 94 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M. D. Tahir vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 MLD 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• M. D. Tahir vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1995 MLD 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• M. Ashraf vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 15 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• M. Ashraf vs Mst. Nusrat Sultana And Another1995 MLD 1217 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• M. Aram Amin vs Muhammad Ali Khan and another1995 CLC 1795 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-29
  arbitration awardrule of the courtmisconduct of arbitratorlack of evidencejoint venturememorandum of understanding
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Lahore, rejecting the appellant's objections and making an arbitration award a rule of the court. Differences arose between the appellant and respondent regarding a memorandum of understanding establishing a joint business division, leading to arbitration. When the arbitrators disagreed, an umpire was appointed, who issued an award in favour of the respondent concerning car export and auto rickshaw businesses. The appellant challenged the award on grounds of misconduct and total lack of evidence. The Lahore High Court examined the record and held that the umpire's award was not supported by any legal evidence or documents connecting the appellant to the alleged transactions or commissions, and that the award suffered from a total lack of evidence. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the arbitration award, and overturned the trial court's order making the award a rule of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an arbitration award can be set aside when it is not based on any evidence on the record?
  • Does an umpire have the power to make an award without supporting material evidence establishing the claims?
  • Whether a trial court can make an arbitration award a rule of the court in the absence of valid proof supporting the arbitrator's findings?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Anayat vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 569 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
• M. Alam Khan vs Jewan Khan and 5 others1995 PLD Lahore 181 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31
  rejection of plaintcourt-feevaluation of suitpecuniary jurisdictionreturn of memorandum of appealcivil revisionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgments and decrees of the lower courts relating to the rejection of a plaint and the return of a memorandum of appeal due to deficient court-fee and lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The core legal questions involve the distinction between clauses (b) and (c) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the amendment of valuation and payment of court-fee, the effect of a trial court's procedural failure to amend the valuation in the plaint despite determining a higher value, and the competency of a civil revision when an appeal is available. The Lahore High Court held that while the trial court committed a procedural irregularity by not getting the relevant paragraph of the plaint formally amended alongside determining the higher valuation, this did not confer pecuniary jurisdiction on the lower appellate court, which rightly returned the memorandum of appeal. Furthermore, a civil revision is incompetent under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where an appeal is the proper remedy, and the petition was additionally barred by limitation pursuant to the statutory amendments introduced by Act VI of 1992. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • What is the distinction between clauses (b) and (c) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding undervalued plaints and insufficiently stamped paper?
  • Does a trial court's failure to get the valuation paragraph of a plaint formally amended after determining a higher value vitiate subsequent proceedings or alter the proper forum of appeal?
  • Is a civil revision petition competent against a trial court's judgment and decree when an appeal lies against the same before the High Court?
  • What is the effect of the 1992 amendment prescribing a period of limitation for filing a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Akbar Muggo vs Ghee Corporation1995 CLC 1939 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• M. 11 Tahir, Advocate vs Provincial Government through Chief1995 PLD Lahore 308 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Lt.-Col. Mohsin Shah vs Mst. Qaseema Wahid and others1995 MLD 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• Lt. Colonel Mohsin Shah vs Mst. Qaseema Wahid And OtherK.L.R. 1997 CiviLCases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. Noor Alam Lodhi and 2 others vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another1995 CLC 647 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Lt. Col. Mohsin Shah vs Mst. Qaseema Wahid And Other1995 MLD 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• Liaquat vs The State and 2 others1995 MLD 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
• Liaquat vs The State And 2 Other1995 MLD 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ejaz vs The State1997 MLD 201 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-19Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
• Liaqat vs Province of Punjab and others1995 CLC 672 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
• Lehrasab Khan vs The State1995 MLD 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• Latifan Parveen vs Additional District Judge and others1995 CLC 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
• Latif Asghar vs Government of the Punjab and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 221 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Langar, Etc. vs CH. Muhammad Shafi, And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan. vs Imdad Hussain1995 MLD 737 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-08Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan vs Imdad Hussain1995 MLD 737 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-08Read full judgment →
• Lal Hussain vs Muhammad Akber and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 946 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18
  cancellation of bailfraudforgerycriminal breach of trustdishonoured chequecivil vs criminal dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Muhammad Akbar, by an Additional Sessions Judge. The respondent was accused of defrauding the complainant by obtaining two vehicles under false pretenses, issuing a dishonoured cheque, and subsequently selling the vehicles to third parties using forged transfer documents. The core legal question was whether the lower court erred in characterizing the dispute as civil in nature and granting bail, despite evidence of forgery and the respondent's involvement in similar criminal cases. The High Court held that the lower court's assessment was misconceived. The court found prima facie evidence of fraud, noting that the respondent had used deception to deprive the complainant of property, a serious offence comparable in effect to 'Haraabah'. Given the respondent's history of similar offences and the evidence of forgery, the court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the bail granted to the respondent was cancelled, emphasizing that fraud involving deception to misappropriate property constitutes a serious criminal offence.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be cancelled if the lower court erroneously characterizes a criminal case of fraud as a civil dispute?
  • Does the involvement of an accused in multiple similar criminal cases constitute a valid ground for the cancellation of bail?
  • Is the use of forged transfer documents to sell misappropriated vehicles sufficient to establish a prima facie case of fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Din, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 244 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-20Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs S.H.O., P.S. Delhi Gate, Multan1997 MLD 246 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-04Read full judgment →
• Lahore Race Club vs Deputy Director, E.O.B.I. and others1995 PLC 494 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority And Others vs Commissioner, Lahore1995 MLD 573 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
• Koochi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
• Koochi vs TH StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 302 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
• Kohitex (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Muhammad Mukhtar and 2 others1995 CLC 781 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14
  rent restrictionpower of reviewconstitutional jurisdictioninterlocutory orderrent controllerwrit petitionjurisdiction of high court
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller which recalled and modified a previous order regarding the determination of rent under Section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller possesses the inherent power to review an order passed under the said Act. The Court held that the Rent Controller lacks the power of review, as such power is a creature of statute and cannot be exercised unless specifically conferred by the legislature. Consequently, the impugned order, which substantially altered the previous rent determination, was declared without jurisdiction and a nullity in law. The Court established the principle that review is a substantive right that must be expressly granted by statute; in its absence, a tribunal cannot revisit its own orders. Furthermore, the Court affirmed its authority under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to interfere with and set aside interlocutory orders that are patently without jurisdiction, particularly to prevent the prejudice of limited appellate scope.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Rent Controller have the inherent power to review an order passed under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to set aside an interlocutory order passed without jurisdiction?
  • Is an order modifying a previous rent determination under Section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, considered a mere clerical correction or a review?
  Read full judgment →
• Kohitex (Pvt.) Ltd. through Its Chairman vs Muhammad Mukhtar and 2K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 243 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad Etc vs Muhammad Sharif EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 404 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad Deceased Rep. by L.Rs. vs Dost Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 89 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-17Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and anothers vs Muhammad Sharif and 6 others1995 MLD 1042 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-03Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad And Another vs Muhammad Sharif And 6 Other1995 MLD 1042 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-03Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 512 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-12Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad Lang vs The State And 6 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 613 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad Lang . vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 698 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Khudha Bakhsh vs A.C. and others1995 CLC 788 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat Khan vs Nussarat Rabbani Group CaptainK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat Khan vs Mussarat Rabbani1995 PLD Lahore 438 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-06
  temporary injunctionspecific performanceconditional injunctionbalance considerationcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Appeal from Order arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a plot of land. The trial court had allowed the appellant's application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating the suit property, but conditioned it upon the appellant depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,23,000 into the court. The appellant challenged this condition as onerous and arbitrary. The High Court examined whether a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance must always be conditioned upon the deposit of the balance consideration. The Court held that no such general rule exists; rather, the imposition of conditions depends on the facts of each case. If a plaintiff is ready and willing to perform their part and has derived no benefit, a deposit condition is generally unjustified. However, where the plaintiff's conduct is negligent or doubtful, such a condition is proper. Finding that the appellant had delayed the transaction due to a lack of funds, the High Court upheld the trial court's conditional order and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance must always and invariably be made subject to the deposit of the balance sale consideration by the plaintiff?
  • What factors determine whether a court should impose a condition of deposit when granting a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance?
  • Can a court justify imposing a condition of deposit of the balance consideration if the plaintiff has been negligent or delayed the completion of the sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat and others vs District Magistrate and others1995 PLD Lahore 433 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-12
  exhumationpost-mortem examinationinquestnatural justiceviscera chemical examinationconstitutional petitioncriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order of the District Magistrate refusing to direct a re-postmortem and exhumation of a deceased person's body. The core legal questions involved whether a District Magistrate must issue notice to the accused or prosecution before ordering an exhumation and post-mortem, whether such an order is judicial in nature, and whether a writ petition is competent or if the matter falls under criminal revision. The Lahore High Court held that an inquest and inquiry by a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure is a judicial proceeding requiring compliance with principles of natural justice, meaning notice to the affected parties is mandatory. Converting the writ petition into a criminal revision petition under its inherent powers, the Court set aside the District Magistrate's refusal order and directed a fresh exhumation and post-mortem examination by a medical board along with the preservation and chemical examination of viscera. The key principle laid down is that Magistrates conducting inquests or exhumation inquiries act judicially and must adhere to natural justice by hearing interested parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a District Magistrate for the exhumation of a dead body and post-mortem examination is judicial in nature?
  • Is it mandatory for a Magistrate to issue notice and hear the accused or the prosecution before ordering the exhumation of a body?
  • Can a constitutional petition challenging an order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure be treated as a criminal revision petition by the High Court?
  • What is the primary purpose of an inquest conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 324 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Mazhar Farid Kurfija vs Government of the Punjab through the Secretary, Auqaf, Lahore And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 CivirCases 600 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 443 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
• Khan Attaullah Khan Tareen, Advocate vs District Magistrate._D.C., Multan and others1997 MLD 229 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Khaliq Dad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 339 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Khalil Yousuf and others vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 486 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad vs Mst. Riaz Bibi And Another1995 MLD 216 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-22Read full judgment →
• Khalida Zafar vs Controller Nursing Examination BoardK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 468 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-16Read full judgment →
• Khalid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 656 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-11Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nawaz and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1932 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-01
  criminal revisionre-examination of witnessesSection 540 CrPCresiling witnessestrial court discretionmiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, which dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall and re-examine prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, an eye-witness, a doctor, and the investigating officer. The petitioners sought re-examination based on a subsequent letter from the complainant and an affidavit from an eye-witness claiming they had been pressured or falsely involved. The core legal question was whether the trial court was obligated to recall these witnesses for re-examination under Section 540, Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion. The court established that Section 540 is not intended to facilitate the winning over of witnesses or to allow endless re-trials. It clarified that while the court may recall witnesses for the elucidation of evidence already recorded, it is not required to do so merely because a witness has resiled or provided an affidavit post-testimony, as such practices would impede the conclusion of criminal trials and undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court legally obligated to recall and re-examine prosecution witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 simply because they have provided post-testimony affidavits or letters contradicting their earlier statements?
  • Does the power to recall witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to allowing the accused to confront witnesses with new documents obtained after the conclusion of their examination?
  • What is the scope of the court's discretion to recall witnesses for the 'just decision of the case' under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujrat and 61995 P Cr. L J 351 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
• Khalid Maqsood alias Tiny vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-24Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 669 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-04Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood Etc vs Small Business Finance Corporation Ltd.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 732 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood And Others vs The State1995 MLD 1539 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood Alias Baoo and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 144 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Khalid Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 269 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain alias Muhammad Khalid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 970 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Khalid Alias Khaloo vs The State1995 MLD 1452 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
• Khair Din vs Reham DinK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 530 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-13Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Ghulam Hussain and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 930 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Khadim Husain vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 43 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Khadija Bibi And Other vs Returning Officer_Asstt. Comm, and And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 50 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
• KH. Haider Raza vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 303 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
• Kausar Parveen vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1861 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Kaura alias Abdul Aziz vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Kashif Masud Qazi vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 85 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Karam Khan and others vs Allah Bakhsh and others1995 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-27
  occupancy tenantsTaraddadkarbar of jurisdictionevacuee landRehabilitation Settlement Schemecivil court jurisdictionultra vires orderDisplaced Persons Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a declaratory suit filed by plaintiffs claiming to be occupancy tenants (Taraddadkars) of land, seeking to invalidate a Settlement Authority order that transferred the land to an evacuee's transferee on the ground that it was exempt from allotment. The trial court and lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The appellants challenged these findings, contending that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under Sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.

  The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Paragraph 31(ix) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, land held by Muslim occupancy tenants of non-Muslim evacuee landlords was specifically excluded from allotment. Because the D.S.C. lacked jurisdiction to allot such land, the allotment order was void and ultra vires. The High Court affirmed that civil courts, as courts of ultimate and general jurisdiction, retain jurisdiction to set aside orders passed by special tribunals that act without jurisdiction or beyond statutory powers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory bar of jurisdiction under Sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 prevent civil courts from reviewing orders passed by Settlement Authorities that are ultra vires or without jurisdiction?
  • Whether land held by occupancy tenants under non-Muslim evacuee landlords is exempt from allotment under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
  • Does a Taraddadkar tenant fall within the definition of an occupancy tenant under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887?
  • Does Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts to set aside illegal orders passed by Settlement Authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Khan And Others vs Allah Bakhsh And Other1995 MLD 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
• Karam Ellahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 513 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
• Karam Elahi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1661 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
• Kanwar Intizar Muhammad Khan, Advocate vs Federation of Pakistan1995 MLD 1903 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
• Kamaluddin vs The Province of Punjab (Service through DistrictK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 490 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kamaluddin vs The Province of Punjab (Service through District1997 MLD 21 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
• Jhangli vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 327 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• Jehana and 4 others vs Mst. Parveen and 2 others1995 MLD 991 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
• Jehana And 4 Others vs Mst. Parveen And 2 Other1995 MLD 991 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →